Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30455541›Full record

ArticleBiology of sport2018

Investigating the game-related statistics and tactical profile in NCAA division I men's basketball games.

Daniele Conte, Antonio Tessitore, Aaron Gjullin, Dominik Mackinnon, Corrado Lupo, Terence Favero

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Biology of sport, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Daniele ConteDepartment of Movement, Human and Health Sciences, University of Rome Foro Italico, Rome, Italy.
Antonio TessitoreDepartment of Movement, Human and Health Sciences, University of Rome Foro Italico, Rome, Italy.
Aaron GjullinDepartment of Biology, University of Portland, Portland, OR, USA.
Dominik MackinnonDepartment of Biology, University of Portland, Portland, OR, USA.
Corrado LupoSchool of Exercise & Sport Sciences, SUISM,Department of Medical Sciences, University of Torino, Turin, Italy.
Terence FaveroDepartment of Biology, University of Portland, Portland, OR, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to analyze the game-related statistics and tactical profile in winning and losing teams in NCAA division I men's basketball games. Twenty NCAA division I men's basketball close (score difference: 1-9 points) games were analyzed during the 2013/14 season. For each game, the game-related statistics were collected from the official teams' box scores. Number of ball possessions, offensive and defensive ratings and the Four Factors (effective field goal percentage; offensive rebounding percentage, recovered balls per ball possession, free throw rate) were also calculated. The tactical parameters evaluated were: ball reversal, dribble in key area, post entry, on-ball screen, off-ball screen, and hand off. Differences between winning and losing teams were calculated using a magnitude-based approach. Winning teams showed a likely higher percentage of 3-point goals made, number of defensive rebounds and steals and a very likely higher number of free throws made and free throws attempted. Furthermore, winning teams showed a likely higher team offensive rating and effective field goal percentage and a very likely higher free throw rate compared to losing teams. Finally, the results revealed a likely higher number of ball reversals and post entries in winning teams compared to losing teams. This study highlighted the game-related statistics and the tactical actions differentiating between winning and losing teams in NCAA Division I men's basketball close games. Coaches should use these results to optimize their training sessions, focusing on those variables that might increase the possibility to win close games.

Indexed as

Basketball tacticsCoachingGame outcomePerformance analysisTeam sports

Identifiers

PMID30455541
PMCPMC6234313

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.